Bug 2229721

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104488187

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6250025
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2229721-python-pygments-git/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06250025-python-pygments-git/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

 - It would be better to use the Github archive which contains tests and run them :

%global pypi_name pygments-git

%global _description %{expand:
Pygments lexers for Git output and files.}

Name:           python-%{pypi_name}
Version:        1.6.0
Release:        %{autorelease}
Summary:        Pygments lexers for Git output and files

License:        MIT
URL:            https://github.com/adamchainz/pygments-git
Source:         %url/archive/%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz

BuildArch:      noarch
BuildRequires:  python3-devel

%description %_description

%package -n python3-pygments-git
Summary:        %{summary}

%description -n python3-pygments-git %_description

%prep
%autosetup -p1 -n %{pypi_name}-%{version}
# we use the template because we don't want the strict versioning
sed -i "s|-r requirements/{envname}.txt|-r requirements/requirements.in|" tox.ini

%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires -t

%build
%pyproject_wheel

%install
%pyproject_install
%pyproject_save_files pygments_git

%check
%tox

%files -n python-%{pypi_name} -f %{pyproject_files}
%doc README.rst

%changelog
%autochangelog


==================================================================================


Review:


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pygments-git/review-
     python-pygments-git/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 3502 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-pygments-git-1.6.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          python-pygments-git-1.6.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==============================================================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4wr6jfzw')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

python-pygments-git.src: W: strange-permission python-pygments-git.spec 600
=============================================================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ===============================================================================================================

Hello,

Thanks for the quick review and tips. Updated spec/srpm:

Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygments-git/python-pygments-git.spec
SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygments-git/python-pygments-git-1.6.0-3.fc39.src.rpm

Cheers,
Ankur

LGTM, package approved.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pygments-git

FEDORA-2023-43b25c9717 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-43b25c9717

FEDORA-2023-43b25c9717 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-8d46d241df has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8d46d241df

FEDORA-2023-06f9840542 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-06f9840542

FEDORA-2023-8d46d241df has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-8d46d241df \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8d46d241df

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-06f9840542 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-06f9840542 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-06f9840542

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-8d46d241df has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-06f9840542 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.